Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote: > >If we accept the idea there's now more than one way to build the >package, I would like us do not limit the number of ways to '2' but >rather extend the prospoal to set up something similar to Gentoo's USE >flags. The advantages of that idea: > >- porters/buildds/local administrators will have the greater flexibility > to choose what the want to (re)build; >- for the architecture bootstrap this could be used for packages that > need to be rebuilt more than once with growing set of features > build-by-build (don't know if such packages exist). > >The disadvantage is obvious: harder to implement. > >I imagine it to look something like: > >Source: fbreader >Build-Depends-Core: debhelper (>= 7), libbz2-dev >Build-Depends-Qt3: libqt3-mt-dev >Build-Depends-Qt4: libqt4-dev >Build-Depends-Gtk2: libgtk2.0-dev > >Like in the original proposal, sets of build-depends are to be chosen by >DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS, for example DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=use=gtk2,qt4. In >absence of 'use' flag (i.e. by default), all 'optional' packages are >built. And like in the original proposal, there's a header in the >resulting .changes (and possibly in something else) which determines what >was the value of the 'use' flag when building, like > >Built-With: gtk2,qt4. > >For the compatibility, dpkg-genchanges would combine all Build-Depends-* >to a single Build-Depends.
I can see this turning into a large mess. What's the benefit for Debian for all the extra work here? If you want massively differing builds on every machine, Gentoo exists already... -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com "...In the UNIX world, people tend to interpret `non-technical user' as meaning someone who's only ever written one device driver." -- Daniel Pead -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1qsu6z-0001ot...@mail.einval.com